Reading 05: Challenger

From the Vice article, it seems that the primary cause of the Challenger disaster was that “O-rings performed poorly at low temperatures, and that they wouldn’t properly form a seal in the cold” (Pasternack). During the launch, the outside temperatures were below the safely tested temperatures for O-rings. This isn’t the only reason though. “Boisjoly and his colleagues at NASA contractor Morton Thiokol described the risk of low temperatures to NASA managers from their headquarters in Utah, and urged NASA to postpone the launch” (Pasternack). However, the management at NASA and the management at Thiokol decided to minimize the concerns raised to them by the engineers at Thiokol due to the pressure of not delaying the launch, especially since the launch was widely covered due to Christa McAuliffe being the first ordinary citizen to go to space. Stories like the Challenger disaster really tick me off. To be quite honest, they make no sense to me. According to the Whistleblower Report Fund, “We now know that Boisjoly met secretly with an NPR reporter shortly after the shuttle disaster to provide information about the problems at Morton Thiokol” (Lewis). Even if he didn’t though, NASA and by association, Morton Thiokol were going to be held accountable for the explosion, so things looked pretty bad for them anyways. I guess there could be expenses that go along with delaying the launch, but why would companies that hold themselves to such high esteem take such a big gamble knowing that they were warned by highly knowledgable people of the catastrophic risks? The outcomes of that are probably way worse than any money lost from delaying it. In my opinion, Roger Boisjoly was ethical in sharing the information with the public, especially since “NASA managers were successful in diverting attention from the O-rings” (Lewis) despite the fact that they probably knew that was the likely cause due to the warnings. Obviously the company has their reputation to keep intact, but it’s unethical to pretend like they’re not responsible for the mistakes that they made. Doing so devalues the lives of those who were lost because of those mistakes. I think Boisjoly’s actions are ethical because to not blow the whistle would be to accept that NASA has no responsibility when he knew better than that. In a way, I guess Thiokol is justified in retaliating against him due to it making them look bad as a company because they are just trying to look out for themselves. However, at the same time, I don’t think Thiokol is justified because they fully know that they’re sweeping something terrible they’re responsible for under the rug. To try and retaliate against Boisjoly despite their knowledge is just justifying his actions to show that they as a company are at fault and cold heartedly have no sympathy for the loved ones of those who had passed. To be honest, I don’t know if I’d have the guts to be a whistleblower. As unfortunate as it is, to be a whistleblower means you would have to deal with many potentially life changing and detrimental consequences. The good in it is that to be a whistleblower means that you have a sense of integrity, bravery, and good sense of moral direction that many others within that company may not have. Is that satisfaction with your integrity enough to outweigh the negatives though? Unfortunately, that’s what I don’t know. I guess that’s up to what the person really values more.